logo
Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.

Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.

New York Times16-06-2025
It was a turning point in the Trump administration's efforts to bring elite academia to heel. The White House had made an example of Columbia University by axing $400 million in federal grants, and now it was saying that the Ivy League school would have to acquiesce to a bill of demands if it were to have any hope of recouping the money.
One of the dictates handed down in March involved the university's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. The White House, which said Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment, wanted the school to strip the department of its autonomy, a rare administrative step that was viewed as a serious blow to academic freedom. The university, which was the first high-profile target in the administration's war on higher education, had a different idea.
Quietly, university officials were trying to navigate a narrower path, appeasing President Trump by cracking down on protests and making changes to student discipline. But the measures adopted by Columbia were not as drastic as what the White House had wanted. The university's leaders sought to shape Mr. Trump's demands through negotiation instead of fighting them through litigation, and to do that while maintaining core ideals that had defined the university for nearly 275 years.
Columbia's approach stood in stark contrast to the tack taken by Harvard University, which turned to the courts to fight Mr. Trump.
While many in the academic world have accused Columbia of caving to Mr. Trump's pressure, the university's strategy — so far — has limited the bleeding to $400 million, even as Harvard has absorbed cut after cut, stretching into billions of dollars. While opponents of the Trump administration's crackdown have lauded Harvard for standing its ground, it is far from clear which school will be better off in the long run. And the question remains whether Columbia's path can offer a road map for other universities attacked by the president.
'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation,' Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, said last week in a statement. 'We must maintain our autonomy and independent governance.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Alleges Torture in El Salvador Prison
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Alleges Torture in El Salvador Prison

Time​ Magazine

time16 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Alleges Torture in El Salvador Prison

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose mistaken deportation in March became a flashpoint in tensions over the Trump Administration's hardline immigration policy, was 'threatened and tortured' in a notorious El Salvadoran prison, his lawyers said in a court document that was filed on Wednesday. Abrego Garcia was removed from the U.S. on March 15 as part of a mass deportation order by the Trump Administration, despite a 2019 federal court order that protected him from being deported to El Salvador. The Administration opposed multiple court orders to take steps to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return, despite initially calling his deportation an 'administrative error,' prompting legal scholars to sound alarms over the possibility of a constitutional crisis. Administration officials have accused Abrego Garcia of being affiliated with the MS-13 gang, without providing any proof. Abrego Garcia and his family have denied the allegations, saying that he fled El Salvador because of gang violence. Last month, it was revealed that Abrego Garcia had been returned to the U.S., but that the Trump Administration was bringing criminal charges against him related to the transportation of undocumented immigrants—a move Abrego Garcia's lawyers called 'preposterous' and 'an abuse of power, not justice.' The document filed on Wednesday details Abrego Garcia's experiences in El Salvador's notorious prison, Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), before he was later transferred to a different detention center in the country. His lawyers allege that when Abrego Garcia arrived at CECOT, a prison official told him and other people detained there, 'Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn't leave.' Abrego Garcia was 'then forced to strip, issued prison clothing, and subjected to physical abuse including being kicked in the legs with boots and struck on his head and arms to make him change clothes faster,' according to the court filing. The next day, it says, Abrego Garcia had 'visible bruises and lumps all over his body.' Abrego Garcia and 20 other people being held at CECOT 'were forced to kneel from approximately 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM, with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion,' according to the document. In that time, Abrego Garcia was denied access to a bathroom and soiled himself, the filing says. On more than one occasion, Abrego Garcia saw people detained in other cells who he believed were gang members 'violently harm each other with no intervention from guards or personnel' and could hear screaming from nearby cells throughout the night, according to the document. 'While at CECOT, prison officials repeatedly told Plaintiff Abrego Garcia that they would transfer him to the cells containing gang members who, they assured him, would 'tear' him apart,' the filing alleges. Abrego Garcia 'suffered a significant deterioration in his physical condition,' according to the document, losing about 31 pounds in just the first two weeks he was being held at the prison. A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Abrego Garcia could be released from U.S. custody while awaiting trial for the criminal charges that the Trump Administration had filed against him. But his attorneys expressed concern that the Administration would try to deport him again if he were to be released, and the judge granted their request to keep him in jail.

Justice Alito's warning about nationwide injunction 'loophole' looms over Trump cases
Justice Alito's warning about nationwide injunction 'loophole' looms over Trump cases

Fox News

time33 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Justice Alito's warning about nationwide injunction 'loophole' looms over Trump cases

Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about a "potentially significant loophole" in the Supreme Court's decision to curb universal injunctions, and now his warning is hanging over lawsuits involving President Donald Trump. Alito said in his concurring opinion in Trump v. CASA that class action lawsuits and lawsuits brought by states leave room for judges to hand down injunctions that, in practice, would function the same way a universal injunction does. "Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools," Alito said. Alito's warning comes as judges continue to hand down sweeping rulings and as plaintiffs begin filing lawsuits tailored to avoid running into the new roadblock established by the high court. In one major ruling, Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee based in Washington, D.C., found this week that Trump's proclamation declaring an "invasion" at the border was unlawful. Trump's proclamation restricted migrants from claiming asylum when crossing into the United States, a practice the Trump administration says has been abused by border crossers. Moss "set aside" that policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, which had an effect similar to that of a nationwide injunction. More than a dozen potential asylees brought the lawsuit, and Moss also agreed to certify the case as a class action lawsuit that applied to all potential asylees in the country. The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that Moss was a "rogue district court judge" who was "already trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's recent ruling against nationwide injunctions." In his concurring opinion, Alito warned against class action lawsuits that do not strictly abide by Rule 23, which lays out the criteria for certifying a class. He said the Supreme Court's decision on universal injunctions will have "very little value" if district courts do not adhere to the rule. "District courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23," Alito wrote. "Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief,' and today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest." Alito also noted that another area for exploitation could be states that seek statewide relief from a court. For instance, Democrat-led states have filed several lawsuits challenging Trump's policies. A judge could grant those states statewide injunctions, meaning everyone living in the state would be exempt from the policies. Alito warned that giving third parties widespread standing in cases in that manner required careful scrutiny. If judges are lax about these statewide lawsuits, states will have "every incentive to bring third-party suits on behalf of their residents to obtain a broader scope of equitable relief than any individual resident could procure in his own suit," Alito wrote. "Left unchecked, the practice of reflexive state third-party standing will undermine today's decision as a practical matter."

Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity
Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity

CNN

time33 minutes ago

  • CNN

Supreme Court agrees to review bans on transgender athletes joining teams that align with their gender identity

Source: CNN The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to decide whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity, revisiting the issue of LGBTQ rights in a blockbuster case just days after upholding a ban on some health care for trans youth. The decision puts the issue of transgender rights on the Supreme Court's docket for the second year in a row and is by far the most significant matter the justices have agreed to hear in the term that will begin in October. The cases, one from West Virginia and the other from Idaho, involve transgender athletes who at least initially competed in track and field and cross country. The West Virginia case was filed by a then-middle school student who told the Supreme Court she was 'devastated at the prospect' of not being able to compete after the state passed a law banning trans women athletes' participation in public school sports. The court's decision landed as transgender advocates are still reeling from the 6-3 ruling in US v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on trans youth from accessing puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Though the state law also bars surgeries, they were not at issue in the high court's case. But that decision was limited to questions of whether the state had the power to regulate medical treatments for minors, leaving unresolved challenges to other anti-trans laws. The justices agreed to review two cases challenging sports bans in Idaho and West Virginia. The court didn't act on a third appeal over a similar ban in Arizona and will likely hold that case until it decides the other two, probably by early next summer. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of the legal team representing the athletes in the cases, said school athletic programs should be accessible to everyone regardless of a student's sex or transgender status. 'Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth,' said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. 'We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, a Republican, said that the state is 'confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the US Constitution and complies with Title IX.' The Supreme Court will review the case at a time when Republican-led states and President Donald Trump have pushed for policies to curtail transgender rights. Trump ran for reelection in part on a campaign to push 'transgender insanity' out of public schools, mocking Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in advertising for supporting 'they/them,' the pronouns used by some transgender and nonbinary people. But even before that, states had passed laws banning transgender girls from playing on girls' sports teams. Roughly half of US states have enacted such laws. The Trump administration has actively supported policies that bar transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity. On Wednesday, the federal government released $175 million in previously frozen federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania after the school agreed to block transgender athletes from female sports teams and erase the records set by swimmer Lia Thomas. In West Virginia, former Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, signed the 'Save Women's Sports Act' in 2021, banning transgender women and girls from participating on public school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a rising sixth grader at the time, who was 'looking forward to trying out for the girls' cross-country team,' filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban violated federal law and the Constitution. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that West Virginia's ban violated Pepper-Jackson's rights under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. The court also revived her constitutional challenge of the law. 'Her family, teachers, and classmates have all known B.P.J. as a girl for several years, and – beginning in elementary school – she has participated only on girls athletic teams,' US Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, wrote for the court. 'Given these facts, offering B.P.J. a 'choice' between not participating in sports and participating only on boys teams is no real choice at all.' Most of the appeals on the issue of transgender athletes question whether such bans are permitted under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The West Virginia case was different in that it also raised the question of whether such bans violated Title IX. The Supreme Court often prefers to settle a dispute under a law, rather than the Constitution, if it has the option because such a ruling technically allows Congress to change the law in response to the decision. West Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court last year, arguing that the appeal court decision 'renders sex-separated sports an illusion.' 'Schools will need to separate sports teams based on self-identification and personal choices that have nothing to do with athletic performance,' the state said. West Virginia initially brought the case to the Supreme Court last year on an emergency basis, seeking to enforce the law against Pepper-Jackson while the underlying legal challenge played out. In an unsigned order, the court declined that request. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted it. In Idaho, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the state's sports ban in 2020, the first of its kind in the nation. Lindsay Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State University, sued days later, saying that she intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging that the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. A federal district court blocked the law's enforcement against Hecox months later and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision last year. Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July. 'Idaho's women and girls deserve an equal playing field,' said Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican. 'For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports.' But Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, stressed the importance of team sports for all students. Lambda Legal is part of the team representing Pepper-Jackson in the West Virginia case. 'Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,' said Buchert said. 'Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.' This story has been updated with additional information. See Full Web Article

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store